In the WB clip the ball carrier forms a maul when team-mates and the opposition bind on. All good.
Nobody back away through the maul, what happens is that the ball is handed back by the ball carrier to the person they call the ripper. This ripper is at no time bound to the maul, he is behind the maul, arms length from it when the ball is handed to him.
You can see this when they freeze the action and put a red ring round him.
The accidental offside is for him then running forward into what was the maul. Not sure what you mean by "the catcher handing the ball back to another player who then reverses back through the maul"? He doesn't reverse anywhere, he just moves forward into the old maul, thereby causing an accidental offside.
Yes, I agree 100%
At this point, he is a ball carrier in open space with team-mates front of him, and if this happens at a line-out, the ball has left the lineout, and opponents are entitled to come through from their offside lines and tackle him. If he moves forward and makes contact with his team-mates, he has made them accidentally offside.
I have a couple of issues regarding what I am seeing referees allow at elite level with maul formation at line outs. In 2009, the iRB Maul Working Group said
"The maul must be formed so that the opposition can contest the maul at the formation; this includes the formation of the maul at a lineout and from a maul formed after kick-offs or restart kicks."
Issue 1.
The catcher is being allowed to hand the ball back before his feet touch the ground, and then his lifters close in front of him or the "ripper", thereby denying access to either of them. Since the opposition are denied access to the player carrying the ball at all stages of this process, this type of maul formation is illegal.
Issue 2.
The catcher is brought to ground to the side of the lineout, and the two lifters close the space in front of him. IMO, the lineout is over if the catcher does not come to ground "in" the lineout - 19.9(b)
"the ball or player carrying it leaves the line-out" - so the lifters are committing obstruction.
The whole maul formation at a line-out scenario needs a complete rethink. IMO they need to return to the actual definition of what constitutes a maul....
[LAWS]LAW 17 DEFINITIONS
A maul begins when
a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents,
and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul
therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the
ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught
in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line.
Open play has ended.[/LAWS]
[opinion]
1.
No maul should be allowed to form unless the ball carrier is
first being held by an opponent.
2. If the catcher at the line-out hands the ball back to a team-mate then the lineout should be over (ball has left the line-out). If he does so
before he his held by a opponent, then it should not be possible to form a maul; any attempt to do so would be obstruction.
3. If a team wishes to form a maul at the lineout, then the catcher needs to keep possession of the ball and wait to be tackled. If the opposition choose not to tackle him, then he moves forward - the opposition will have no option but to tackle him. THEN a maul can form.
[/opinion]
NOTE:
In May, I saw a very effective counter to maul formation in a local third grade club match.
Three, four or sometimes five members of the non-throwing team (depending on the opposition's numbers) would would line-up a ½ metre on their side of the LoT, in a crouched position like an NFL line of scrimmage but roughly interspersed with standing players. When the ball was thrown the receiver would yell out the name of a NZ Provincial Rugby team, then he would yell "GO!" as the catcher's feet were about to touch the ground, and all five crouched players launched like sprinters out the their starting blocks, taking out the legs of the lifters and catcher with legal arm wrap tackles around the ankles or at least below the knees. It worked every time, bringing the opposition's attempt to form a maul crashing down on top of them.
IMO, it looked dangerous, but the referee allowed it, penalising them only once when they got their timing wrong and caught the catcher marginally before his feet touched the ground.
PS: I figured out their calling system too; they also used a more complicated version of it when it was their throw in. What they were doing was supposing the line-out to be a map of NZ. The the 5m line was at the bottom of the South Island, the 15m line at the tip of the North Island. If the call was "Otago" or "Southland", the throw was to the front; "Wellington" or "Tasman" was to the middle; "Northland" to the back. Very clever.
